31 January 2006

I appreciated James Spurgeon's series of posts that culminated in his poignant reminder about the importance of the local church. It reminded me of something I was going to post a couple of weeks ago.

(OK, this is really only peripherally related to James's point, but here you see how my mind works):

Several interesting news stories were circulating at the end of December about a Swedish guy who has designed blue jeans embroidered with overtly satanic emblems. The fellow said he did it deliberately to make "an active statement against Christianity."

One of his most telling comments is found in this article from American Chronicle, about halfway down: "I don't oppose people believing in God privately but I hate congregations," Atldax said.

How fitting his jeans design, then! Because Satan likewise has no problem with private "Christianity" or with the individual pursuit of "spirituality." But the old serpent absolutely hates the church (Revelation 12:17).

The other part of the devil-jeans story that intrigued me was this paragraph:

The designer plans to create logos mocking, and critical of, other religions. "I plan to make something anti-Hindu because I think its caste system is awful. I am not considering any anti-Islamic work now because there are already a lot of anti-Islamic sentiments," he said.

Right. One might think Sweden's (and the rest of Europe's) most troubling social ills all stemmed from too many Christian zealots packing the churches over there.

But seriously, make a mental list of the profound evils that plague European (and American) society today, and ask yourself: do these problems really stem from our Christian heritage, or are they the inevitable result of the church's decline in the face of marauding humanism?

30 January 2006

In Spurgeon's day, as in ours, certain esteemed and influential doctors of divinity insisted that evangelical theology must be overhauled and refashioned to suit the spirit of the age, or else become irrelevant. Then, like now, one of the favorite targets of their tinkering was the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Modernists desperately wanted to tone it down. They were emphatic in their demand that the offense of the cross needed to be removed in order to reach people living in those genteel and "modern" Victorian times.

Specifically, they hated the concept of propitiationthe biblical truth that Christ's atonement was a sacrifice offered to God, to appease His righteous anger against sin. Modern minds found that idea unsophisticated and harsh and therefore disagreeable. Modern theologians proposed a way around that difficulty: Why not emphasize only the self-sacrificial aspect of Christ's death and re-frame the atonement as an example for believers to follow, rather than a payment to God on their behalf?

Then, as now, some "evangelicals" were willing to consider such a compromise. Here is Spurgeon's response to that kind of thinking, taken from one of the last things he ever wrote, a little booklet titled "The Greatest Fight in the World":

On the proposal that we tone down the atonement

We are told that we ought to give up a part of our old-fashioned theology to save the rest. We are in a carriage travelling over the steppes of Russia. The horses are being driven furiously, but the wolves are close upon us! Can you not see their eyes of fire?

The danger is pressing. What must we do? It is proposed that we throw out a child or two. By the time they have eaten the baby, we shall have made a little headway; but should they again overtake us, what then? Why, brave man, throw out your wife!

'All that a man hath will he give for his life'; give up nearly every truth in hope of saving one. Throw out inspiration, and let the critics devour it. Throw out election, and all the old Calvinism; here will be a dainty feast for the wolves, and the gentlemen who give us the sage advice will be glad to see the doctrines of grace torn limb from limb. Throw out natural depravity, eternal punishment, and the efficacy of prayer.

We have lightened the carriage wonderfully. Now for another drop. Sacrifice the great sacrifice! Have done with the atonement!

Brethren, this advice is villainous, and murderous; we will escape these wolves with everything, or we will be lost with everything. It shall be 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', or none at all. We will never attempt to save half the truth by casting any part of it away.

A personal note: Sorry about my lax posting since the new bloglaunch. I do intend to post more regularly, but I have been laid low by flu symptoms this past week, and I decided to take advantage of the group-blog situation by giving myself a rest.

For those who have asked, I do remember that we left a couple of threads dangling (one on cessationism, the other on the mosaic law.) I fully intend to get back to both subjects eventually, but given my schedule between now and March 15, I'm not keen to get back into a subject that's likely to spawn a thousand comments, so I'll prolly wait till sometime after the Ides of March.

28 January 2006

[Update: some links are now dead. Story relayed below is also reported here.]

In my opinion, the Powers behind End of the Spear made a big mistake in casting well-known homosexual activist Chad Allen in the two (2) lead roles. I laid the foundations and made some predictions here, then I scored the accuracy of my predictions within five days of their issuance here (better than most modern wanna-be's), and finally tried to make some concluding comments on the controversy here.

In sum, my problem wasn't so much that the organ grinder got a monkey, to mess with Frank's parable. It's that the grinder hired a "monkey" well-known for defending and practicing the devastating art of machete-swinging, handed him a brand-new and freshly-sharpened machete, and set him loose on an initially unsuspecting audience.

But this isn't about that.

This is about the after-the-fact explanations that have been given, and their broader implications for Christian living. Jason Janz has been trying hard to follow this story conscientiously and Christianly from the start. Janz has now given a full accounting of the responses of Executive Producer Mart Green, and of Steve Saint himself, to Christians' concerns about this casting decision.

Whether or not you agree with all our reasoning and specifics, I think you have to grant that Jason, I, and many others have raised some contentful, specific, reasoned concerns about this decision. You also have to grant that subsequent developments have borne out our concerns, rather than negating them.

Now, there would be various ways of dealing with these concerns. You could ignore them. You could attack the personalities of those levelling the charges. You could say, "I see it differently," and refuse to engage. You could put your fingers in your ears and hum a little tune. You could feign inability to understand Engilsh. You could point and say "Look! a comet!", and change the subject.

Or you could do what I think is the responsible Christian thing: think it through seriously, Biblically, and prayerfully, being humbly open to correction (Proverbs 1:5; 9:8b-9; 25:12). You could then present a reasoned response, either explaining why your position is Biblical and God-honoring -- or confessing that you'd blown it, and showing genuine repentance.

Or you could slap down the Christianoid trump-card: "God told me to."

The earliest response I read from Steve Saint himself, reported by Agape Press in this story, dated January 19, 2006, was this:

I thought, 'What happens if I stand before God someday and He says to me, "Steve, I went out of my way to orchestrate an opportunity for Chad Allen to see what it would be like to live as your father did.' And then I could picture Him looking at me and saying, 'Steve, why did you mess with my plan?'"

Saint presents himself as just thinking this through, just speculating and wondering and musing. You can agree with his thinking, or you can disagree. I would have disagreed, and in many ways. But as Timmy also observed, it's simply presented here as a what-if.

Now Janz reports a response from Steve Saint that seems very different:

The deciding factor was a dream I had in Panama, just before Chad arrived. I was being chased by a mob of Christians who were angry with me for having desecrated 'their story'. I tried to explain that this story was even more special to me than to them, but they would not listen. The answer to their hostility was easy - just ask Chad to remove himself, since Mart could not rescind his contract with Chad.

As quickly as this thought came to me, I found myself standing before God. His look was not as compassionate as I had expected. With no introduction or welcome, God spoke to me. "Steve, you of all people should know that I love all of my children. With regard to Chad Allen, I went to great lengths to orchestrate an opportunity for him to see what it would be like for him to walk the trail that I marked for him. Why did you mess with my plans for him?"

I was fully awake by the end of this sleepy mind play. I knew that there would be a price to pay for any position I would take on this issue, regardless of the fact that I had not wanted to be involved. I knew one thing for sure. I would rather face the anger and even hatred of people who feel I have let them down here; than to take any chance of having to stand before my Savior and have to answer for messing up His plans for Chad.

So much seems wrong with this, but I'll confine myself to one issue. What seems to be presented as Saint's musings in the older article, now becomes the Christianoid trump-card. God tells Steve Saint something He didn't tell the rest of us.

Now, if true, that ends the discussion. Who wants to argue with God? Not you, not me. So that's it, right? We're done.

Mart Green presents his part very similarly, in the same exchange with Jason Janz (emphases added):

I wish I were able to articulate all the things that happened which led to medecidingGod had, in fact, sent Chad to play the parts of Nate and Steve. It is very hard to share the ways the Lord leads especially when you can't fully grasp why He is doing things that don't make sense to the natural man. It is hard to see people have to defend a decision that I was responsible for, for people to have ugly things said about them because of a decision that I made. Why must others have to go through this when it wasn't their fault? I have total peace about the decision that was made. But I have to trust God for the others affected, as it is too big for me to handle. I must admit even though I wouldn't have thought so when I began the process, I have total peace Chad Allen was the man God intended to act in the movie, End of the Spear. I will be held accountable for this decision and I feel I have made the right decision.

What we have here, in terms of content, is that Green interpreted circumstances and feelings as indicating God's will and leading. And so now he "feels" sure that he has read God's mind, and knows God's will for this situation. Therefore, anyone who opposes his decision opposes God's mind, and thus opposes the will of God as made known to this one man, Mart Green. Evidently, such ones are thinking like "the natural man."
If you take away the feelings, readings of providential signs and portents, and claims of dreams, what are you left with? As I read them, they say they had no idea Allen was a homosexual activist when they offered him the role, and just felt he was the very best man for the part.

Now, if that was all we had to interact with, we could have a real, rollicking debate. We could ask how a Chad Allen could really be the very best and only choice for this role. It wasn't name-recognition, as I think you'd have to say that Allen is a B-list actor. There's no shame in hiring, or being, a B-list actor; but there are many excellent B-list actors not known for championing and trying to legitimize soul-destroying practices -- let alone capable Christian actors. And isn't that rather a slam to working Christian actors, to suggest that none of them could have handled this role?

But even more than that, we could express astonishment that anyone could be in such a powerful position, involving so many people and so much money, and not take the time to find out what even a dim bulb like me was able to find out after two minutes at IMDB.

But now we can't have that discussion. Green and Saint have removed themselves from being engaged on such trivial concerns as facts, Scriptural principles, and reasoning. God hinted and motioned and portented His will to them, privately, by special extra-Biblical channels. Oppose their decision, and you oppose God. Disagree with them, and you are sinning -- unless you have a definition of sin that doesn't include "opposing the will of God."

That certainly seems to be the design and implication -- and that's also the problem with this whole open-Canon or leaky-Canon mindset we were discussing at the old Pyromaniac site. If you think God now whispers, mutters, nudge-nudges, does hand-signals and mime, drops hints, gives meaningful looks and broadcasts low-frequency hunches, and if you invest those perceptions with Divine authority... well, you've removed yourself from the arena of debate. You're not responsible anymore. Anyone who disagrees with you is fighting against God, and therefore is a bad, bad man or woman.

On the other hand, if you really, really believe in the fact and implications of the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17); and if you believe that the Word of God gives you all the direction God expects you to follow, and is how the Holy Spirit talks to you (cf. Proverbs 6:20-23; Hebrews 3:7f.); and if you believe that it is your God-given responsibility to think through and make responsible decisions in areas not directly ruled on by Scripture (Proverbs 16:1, 9; 19:21) -- then you're in an entirely different position. You have to learn to think, decide, and act like a grown-up (Hebrews 5:11-14). It's hard, and it's hard work. It's painful. I don't really like it all that much; if there was an "out," I'd be the first to bolt for it. But it's what God calls us to do.

How do I know?

God told me.

He told me in all the Scriptures laid out above, and many others beside. He told me in every Biblical command addressed to me as a Christian, and by the fact that He put those commands in Scripture instead of confining the New Testament to one sentence: "Everything else you need to know, God will tell you directly." Everything that leads me to that conclusion is publicly available to every Christian; I claim no private, secret knowledge. It's all on the table, laid out as the common possession (and responsiblity) of every child of God.

And because God doesn't tell me (or you) anything that He doesn't also tell every other Christian (Hebrews 1:1-2; 2:1-4), He told you, too.

27 January 2006

So I have kids. I know it's a scary thought, but I have two children who are, of course, the smartest kids their age and the most well-mannered. My wife wouldn't have it any other way, and so we comply. Happy wife: happy life.

It turns out this is a post that underscores the virtues of homeschooling -- by negative example. I've been saving this all week because it'll make a great "but before you go home" post to read and savor all weekend.

My parents have been down the last 2 weeks, and because they live 1500 miles away and see my kids about 4 times a year, they lavish them with presents. It makes me crazy, but I can't stop them, so I just blog about it to blow off steam and let it go. This time around, the boy got a Batman video game, among other things.

Now, we are not video game averse, and this little toy is relatively harmless -- it even has some problem-solving levels that are timed so you have to do more than "BBA! ABAA! BABA! XAXABBA! DOWN-B-X BONUS MOVE!" like Beast Boy on Teen Titans.

Yeah. Anyway ...

We're unwrapping this thing and hooking it up to the TV, and my son sits down in front of the toob and says, and I quote, "Yo, LET'S GET THIS PAUDY STAUDED!"

My son said this. Now listen: you think he got this from me, but I don't talk gibberish from Bass Patrol lyrics in front of my kids. I am sure all of you would not be suprised to read me argue against Doug Wilson or the ridiculous Dave Armstrong, "What? BAPTISM?! Well, let's GET THIS PAUDY STAUDED, Yo!" But at home, in front of the kids, I'm Ward Cleaver; I'm the nerdy guy from Full House; I'm Herman Munster, complete with that daffy laugh.

I would never say, "LET'S GET THIS PAUDY STAUDED!" to my kids. Yet here is my son, who has been in (I am ashamed to say) public school for 4 months, and he's bustin' out with Batman sayin' "Yo, LET'S GET THIS PAUDY STAUDED!"

Needless to say, I was mortified. And no, I am not going to let him blog. He's 6, and he doesn't get to tell his side of the story until he's old enough to know he shouldn't talk like that in front of his mother.

By joining this blog, my posting can continue to define the word "sporadic," I can completely neglect all other blogs, and I can continue to spend nearly every waking hour engrossed with the Police Academy all while regaining a large following of readers that I haven't earned. Have I found a loophole in the Universe? Am I about to open Pandora's Box?

It's not a question of whether or not I belong here. Clearly, I don't.

I'm kind of like the untalented son of a T-ball coach, who'd be lucky to make "team towel-boy" but instead managed to be the shortstop. Instead of capitalizing on my lineage and family's blind nepotism, I get to spend all my time watching Scooby-doo and eating paste.

This is a perfect situation. All I have to do is show up for a few home games and I'm guaranteed a trophy at the end of the season, league rules.

25 January 2006

As you have been walking down the cultural street, you have been listening to the organ grinders that you have passed by. Occationally -- perhaps even at random -- you have been handing quarters out to the monkeys, all of whom have tried to bite you. It's annoying, but the monkeys are cute at first glance.

Axwell Tiberius, Organ Grinder

sibboleth?

Suddenly, you stop at one organ-grinder because you thought you heard him say "to every tribe" and thought he had shibbolethed. But when you bend down to give his monkey a quarter, you find out the monkey tries to bite you! Why, the OUTRAGE! To show how mad you are, you walk up to the organ grinder and tell him, "Signore, your monkey tried to bite me even though I know you are a Christian."

To which the organ-grinder replies, "He's a monkey; you think I baptized him or something?" And you are somehow appalled that an organ-grinder is using a monkey.

They are all organ-grinders. They are all using monkeys. To get mad at this last one and boycott him when you have boycotted none of the rest for using monkeys is, in fact, arbitrary. It's an organ-grinder problem, not a monkey problem.

I take great encouragement from the apostles. What a bunch of goofs. What stunningly thickheaded slow-learners, yet all (metaphorically) wearing "I'm With Stupid" t-shirts.

In Matthew 16, Jesus asks them who people say He is, then after their response He points the finger and asks "But you -- who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15, emphatic humeis). Peter, in one of his brief, shining moments, gives the right answer, and Jesus says he could only know this by divine revelation. As we see Peter in the Gospels, this is almost a truism.

Then Jesus tells them exactly what is going to happen to Him. Does He leave out any essential? Not really. And yet, when it all eventually happens just as predicted, they're still utterly thunderstruck. Had they the chance, I can almost hear them choking out, "But... but why didn't You tell us?" What knotheads. Ahh, my kind of guys. I'd have fit right in without a ripple. (Well, except for speaking Greek with a California accent.)

But as I recently re-read this passage, what struck me is Peter's response to Jesus' dark announcement. Peter had confessed the wonderful truth about Jesus, and had received Jesus' affirmation. It was stacking up as a great day for the Rockinator.

But what does Peter do with this new information about Him whom he'd just crowned the Christ, the Son of the living God? He rebukes Him! He takes Jesus to task, chews Him out, tries to set Jesus straight. (Yes, that was as weird to write as it is to read.)

But note how Peter rebukes Jesus. The Greek hileos soi, kurie is hard to capture. Probably the best way to render it is to paraphrase along the lines of the ESV's footnote: "May God be merciful to you, Lord!"

Clearly, Peter is appalled to his very soul at the idea. It horrifies him. I wouldn't charge him with great self-interest or any other such base motivation. Peter clearly loved Jesus, by his best lights, and the idea of Him being treated in this way simply sickens Peter to his very soul. Can we blame Him? In his sandals, would we really have sighed, shrugged, nodded piously and said, "Yes, well, that is what some prophecies seem to suggest..."?

Yet Jesus does blame him. In fact, He scorchingly blames him. "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man" (Matthew 16:23 ESV). So much for Peter's good day.

But why does Jesus call Peter "Satan"? Wasn't Peter motivated by tender, compassionate concern for Jesus? I would not assume otherwise. Jesus does not say otherwise. He does not fault Peter's feelings, so much as Peter's thoughts. The HCSB version has it, "you're not thinking about God's concerns." "Not thinking" renders ou phroneis, pointing to a mindset, a mental framework or attitude. The concern does not come from God's perspective.

How is that like Satan? My mind goes back to Satan's first appearance, where we see him as Man's Best Friend. Isn't that how he presents himself? First, he can't believe that God really roped off all the trees of the garden. "Did God actually say?" he begins. He hates to see the woman so deprived, so repressed.

Then when Eve misquotes God to Satan, he immediately moves to quiet her fears. She should not deny herself such a boon! The fruit she wants is the fruit she needs, and God has no good reason for keeping it from her! God have mercy on you Eve, take the fruit and realize your full selfhood, your full potential!

And so he had worked in Peter's thoughts, imperceptibly, maneuvering this good impulse and that good impulse (unshored from God's perspective) until what came out of Peter's mouth was exactly what Satan wanted him to say. Peter doubtless felt a sort of compassion; but that compassion was Satanic. It did not start from God's starting point in rigorously analytical and self-critical thinking, and it did not stay there.

Compassion is a wonderful, godly human emotion -- or can be, as it is informed and directed in line with the Word. But if Peter shows us nothing else, he shows us that compassion can go wrong. What are some specific ways?

Given the baleful, bloody anniversary we've just passed in America, I think of abortion. Pro-aborts present their position as a compassionate position, in fact as the compassionate position. Those who oppose abortion rights (as they put it) have no compassion for women in crisis. Of course, we have a ready response, and can point out that we have compassion on both the mother and the child.

But what of the "hard cases"? What of rape and incest? Here is where I've heard many Christians' "compassion" overrule their Biblical thinking.

Now look, let me be plain. I think the utmost of compassion is completely appropriate for victims of these awful crimes. I think such women should be given every kind of help, encouragement, and support that can be afforded them.

I just don't think it is compassionate to turn a victim into a victimizer.

In such cases, there are two victims: the mother, and her child. Neither one should be punished for being a victim. Both deserve compassion and support. I just can see no Biblical warrant for encouraging a woman to victimize her child, to contract his or her killing, and calling that "compassion."

"Ah," many will say. "That's a very emotional issue." Yes, it really is. As was Jesus' prediction of His impending violent death. That was a very emotional issue for Peter. Peter let his emotions rule his thinking, and that took his thinking in a Satanic direction.

Will we learn nothing from Peter?

Perhaps you can think of other contemporary issues where Satanic values masquerade under a guise of compassion. Homosexuality leaps to mind. It sounds like the very distillation of compassion to tell such tortured souls that they should give up the struggle, accept their passions, and embrace them. But this is the compassion of Hell. This is the compassion that ignores the Cross, with its equally great threats of judgment, and promises of redemption, deliverance, and freedom. To tell souls struggling with any vile passions, whether they draw one towards homosexuality, adultery, theft, or murder, that they have no hope for deliverance, that their only hope is to redefine and then embrace sin, is no compassion at all.

But my last thoughts here turn to another Satanic form of compassion: the "compassion" we turn to our own sins.

We can read glibly of all the particulars above, if we've never waged those specific battles. It's easy for one who's never had the slightest homosexual urge to sermonize glibly on the topic; and so identically with all the others mentioned.

But what of your bad tongue? What of my tendency for faithless despair? What of her arrogant disrespect for her husband? What of his callous, selfish disregard for his wife, or distant unconcern for his children?

Oh, those are different, aren't they? Those are our darling sins. We have compassion on ourselves, compassion on our pet-sins. We create a force-field of rationalizations around them. They're different, because we're different, and our situation is different. Surely they can't be meant for the Cross! Mortify those sins? Put them to a screaming, howling death? Fight and fight, bloodily and incessantly and unsparingly, until they cease struggling and breathing, and have been replaced by God-honoring attitudes and behaviors? God have mercy on us, this can never be!

I'm intrigued by this group blogging thing because Phil is going to post prolly once in a while, Jonathan is unlikely to post until he has completed his current assignment about-which we should not talk until it is complete, and James and Daniel are likely to post more frequently than me.

So I thought I'd get my licks in early.

As I type this, the announcement has been up about 24 hours according to the officials at Technorati, and already 20 blogs have linked to the new venue. It seems that if people actually like you before they disagree with you, they are far more willing to maintain a relationship with you. I'll write that down someplace and try to remember it ...

I had Taco Tico for lunch yesterday -- is that controversial? I prefer it over Taco Bell because it is fresher. I know that's a somewhat-esoteric measure when you're referring to fried hamburger, but it's the tomatoes that really make the difference. They are cold and resilient rather than warm and spongy, and they sing when you bite them.

To get a flavor for what's going to happen sometime tomorrow today, I was reading James' and Daniel's blogs, and somehow I seem to wind up in the company of pastors. Nobody tell my wife, OK? Because she's terrified that I'm going to tell her some day, "Sweetie, I'm called to be a pastor," and she's going to have to kill me. She didn't sign up to be a pastor's wife, and she doesn't believe in divorce. You do the math.

Also, I'd like to point out that until someone else says something controversial, I'm going to honor my friendship with Phil by keeping a rein on the tongue. (that's for the spelling mavins in the meta) After reading our editorial policy, I'm not sure many of my home-blog posts would make it here without significant rework.

So that's where I am right now. It's kinda like moving into a temporary office that's a little bigger than you're used to. It sounds funny, and there aren't enough pictures of my kids on the walls ...

I'm recovering at home today from a surgical procedure that was inflicted upon me yesterday, and I don't feel much like writing a blogpost (or doing anything else, for that matter). So I'm going to leave it to the rest of the guys to fill the blog with substance today.

20 January 2006

Welcome to our blog, and you are encouraged to comment, but please observe the rules:

Don't expect us to reply to your comments. If one of us feels strongly, he might reply in a blog entry. Though we often do participate in the comments, we make no promise (implied or explicit) that we will reply to other people's arguments or questions. Don't look for us to mud-wrestle with critics in our own blog-comments.

Please remember that this is our blog and you are a guest here. You're not a bouncer, a babysitter, or a hired clown. So treat your fellow guests with respect. If someone needs to be escorted off the premises for drunk and disorderly or otherwise antisocial behavior, one of us will do it.

Say what you like about us; disagree as strongly as you like; beat us up or slap us around verbally with near-total impunity. But keep within the parameters of Christian civility. We'll automatically delete comments with profane or unwholesome words, including abbreviated or otherwise disguised ones.

If you want to charge us with breaching the boundaries of Christian civility, please be specific. Point out the infraction and explain why you think it is unbiblical. General complaints or cheap-shot comments about "tone" and undocumented accusations that someone has been uncharitable will be summarily deleted.

On-topic comments only. If you have other stuff to say to one of us, send an e-mail.

Keep our friends and families out of it. Certain kinds of deliberately-intrusive criticism targeting our loved ones or other cherished aspects of our off-line personal lives will be deemed grounds for an instant, automatic, and permanent ban. (Such remarks are outside the parameters of Christian civility and therefore a violation of Rule 2. They also violate rule 3 and this one, and therefore constitute a threefold offense. That's sufficient grounds for an automatic instant ban.) Say whatever you like about us (as long as you keep your language clean), and we'll let you post it. Take a cheap shot at one of our friends, wives, children, churches, or places of employment, and you risk being permanently banned without further consideration. If in doubt, apply the strictest possible interpretations of rules 2 and 3.

Don't feed the trolls.

Break these rules three times and the moderators will automatically delete any further comments you post.

The Rules

PREMISE: DO NOT comment at all if you think the "right way" to handle Christian disagreement is to make an appointment and chat over coffee first. The vortex of irony you will create by commenting will sap the hair-care products off your stylish bed-head, and we do not want to be responsible for that.

Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.

See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.

If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.

Followers

Stats Attack!

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always.